Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nitin Kedu Rajole, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the cancellation of his appointment as Junior Laboratory Chemist by respondent no. 4, Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Ltd. The appointment was made pursuant to Advertisement No. 04-2010, which contained a clause giving preference to project affected persons whose lands were acquired for Mahagenco Projects. The petitioner applied as a project affected person but failed to submit documents proving his own land was acquired. He later submitted a Land Acquisition Certificate dated 7 September 2013 from the Deputy Collector, which only showed that his grandfather's land (Gat No. 484) was acquired in 1964. The respondent cancelled his appointment on 25 May 2016, stating the certificate did not establish the petitioner as a project affected person. The court held that the advertisement required the applicant himself to be a project affected person, and the petitioner's claim based on his grandfather's land acquisition 45 years ago was untenable. The court distinguished the case of Vijay Aradwad, where the petitioner's own land was acquired. The court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the cancellation and noting that accepting the petitioner's claim would open floodgates. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Project Affected Person - Eligibility - Advertisement Clause - The petitioner claimed appointment as a project affected person based on his grandfather's land acquired 45 years ago. The court held that the advertisement required the applicant himself to be a project affected person, and the petitioner's claim was contrary to the advertisement. The court dismissed the petition, finding no infirmity in the cancellation of appointment. (Paras 1-5) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Maintainability - The court observed that the petition was thoroughly misconceived and not maintainable, as the petitioner had no locus standi to claim project affected status based on ancestral land acquisition. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, whose grandfather's land was acquired 45 years ago, can claim to be a 'project affected person' for appointment under an advertisement requiring the applicant himself to be a project affected person.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Project affected person status must be personal
- not inherited from grandfather's land acquisition
- Advertisement conditions strictly construed
- Article 226 not available for misconceived claims
